| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The DWP’s Fit For Work Service | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 26 2014, 08:05 AM (732 Views) | |
| papasmurf | Oct 26 2014, 08:05 AM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If after November you have a more than a month off of work from November onwards, be afraid be very afraid. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/files/fit_for_work_service_-_who_benefits_.pdf The DWP’s Fit For Work Service (FFWS), being rolled out across the country from November 2014, is designed to intervene when a person has been off work, or is expected to be off work, for four weeks or more due to illness. GPs will be expected to refer patients to FFWS, which will then perform an assessment and draw up a plan to get them back to work as quickly as possible. The company which has been awarded the contract by the DWP is http://www.healthmanltd.com/ Health Management Limited. Its Medical Director is Professor Mike O’Donnell. To anyone familiar with the history of welfare reform and the DWP, his involvement may be highly significant. Professor O’Donnell was previously Chief Medical Officer at Atos Healthcare, the company which has been responsible for the Work Capability Assessment fiasco. Prior to being at Atos, he was Chief Medical Officer at Unum, an American insurance company which has worked closely with the DWP on welfare reform, and which has been accused of running ‘disability denial factories’ in the USA, in order to avoid paying out on sickness or injury claims. In 2012 legal website LawyersandSettlements.com reported: "Unum continues to suffer from a global reputation that it denies, delays or discontinues benefits in an alleged attempt to wear down policyholders in their pursuit of legitimate benefits." Professor O’Donnell has boasted in the past about the extent of Unum’s influence on the DWP, including the push for the bio-psychosocial (BPS) model of disability to be used as the basis for assessment. In a document published in 2005 he said: "We know that our views and understanding are not yet in the mainstream of doctors’ thinking, but Government Policy is moving in the same direction, to a large extent being driven by our thinking and that of our close associates, both in the UK and overseas.” |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Stan Still | Oct 27 2014, 03:07 PM Post #81 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Oct 27 2014, 03:11 PM Post #82 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suspect he thinks I am taking the piss... |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Oct 27 2014, 03:16 PM Post #83 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When my dad came over from Co Cork in the early 50's with his 3 brothers they arrived in Manchester and were employed as bouncers in clubs on Mosside, he tells me there was plenty of violence back then and gangland killings too. That all changed when they moved south to Reading. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 27 2014, 03:22 PM Post #84 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He suspects many things the only one that is true is the " Little People" are after him nobody else is
|
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Oct 27 2014, 03:29 PM Post #85 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not the ''little people'' much more important than that.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii1tc493bZM |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 27 2014, 04:08 PM Post #86 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why do you need a Medical Degree to judge if an individual has or has not the ability to perform simple mechanical tests? I certainly would not be wanting to pay out £120,000 PA for such Consultation work. This is just a smoke screen, those that are asked to apply such metics are no being asked to form a medical opinion. It is quite clear that many of those to be judged wish us to jump through hoops in order to form such judgements and I do not need a genius to state whether an individual can stand upright and walk a fixed number of yards unaided. Most of these tests are very simple and those with a medical dimension are subject to professional opinions. It is also easily forgotten that work can be an excellent therapy. Here am I after major surgery walking to the end of the road and back three times a day in order to rebuild and cannot wait to get back into my garden and bend my back. |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Oct 27 2014, 04:14 PM Post #87 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm happy for you..but I think the object of the exercise was to eliminate scroungers...Yer know..professional shirkers.. (which of course PS..do not exist..) |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 27 2014, 04:17 PM Post #88 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Glad to hear you are recovering well keep going quietly away you will soon get back to your garden
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 27 2014, 04:23 PM Post #89 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem is Mary that we have no idea how many have been listed as unfit for work when the exact opposite is true. In the past the Gov. found it very convenient to massage unemployment numbers by allowing people to become incorrectly designated. On top of that I know that even after tightening up it is not difficult, if you are determined, to play the system. I doubt that we will ever eradicate the determined Shirker, but we can radically reduce the number. IDS claims that the jobs miracle is all down to his reforms. I wonder. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 27 2014, 04:31 PM Post #90 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was told to take 6 weeks, but I will be back in my garden in less than 5. In fact I will get there this week God willing. Me thinks that Mr Smurf dreams of establishing a Shirker's Paradise where Employers have to jump through hoops to attract a willing worker. He does not think, perhaps he does not even care, that the perception that Employers have of potential employees is very important. Never forget that if every SME in the land took on just one employee we would not have an unemployment problem, but that decision, if unwise, could break the back of that small business and that is why so many avoid taking risks with the unknown. People in the UK and across Europe need to wake up to the reality of what is taking place in this increasingly global market place, if they do not then the result will be more people receiving significantly less. |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Oct 27 2014, 04:35 PM Post #91 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well yes..he has clamped down..making sure that the long term disabled are actually that..long term disabled..not just the shards left over by the Labour government..when everything was free.. Mmm..twisted ankle..we'll put you in for the maximum benefit..fancy a car Sir??? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 27 2014, 04:49 PM Post #92 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know a couple with a dissabled child who get a free car. The received a new one early this year. Truth is the wife uses it as her personal shopping wagon as the boy prefers Dad's larger family car. Anyway, she did not take to the new Japanese Dukey thingy and just said that her son hates it and will not get in it. She now has a brand spanking new top of the range mini with all mod cons. Simple as that. Another friend, in the DWP, a year from retirement, tells us all the stories, but the best is "where's me wages when do I get me wages". Some of these poor little buggers are led to believe that that is your life, a life of entitlements. |
![]() |
|
| ranger121 | Oct 27 2014, 05:37 PM Post #93 |
![]()
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just to re-iterate, my dear RJD, the cars provided for the use of disabled people are by no means "free" (£56.75 a week lease) and guess what? They have to give them back every three years whether they want to or not... Unless, of course, they can come up with the final lump sum payment to buy the thing; I'm sure that whilst one is on benefits one can save a few grand up at the same time? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 27 2014, 05:38 PM Post #94 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suggest you watch Channel 4 at 20.00 tonight to see how "well" the last benefit privatised contract is working. There is no propaganda on my part involved, anything Unum has even remotely involved in just cannot be trusted. http://www.channel4.com/tv-listings/daily/2014/10/27 ...Dispatches: Universal credit is meant to save money and make it easier for welfare claimants to return to work. But claimants and benefits staff tell Dispatches the system isn't working. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Oct 27 2014, 06:13 PM Post #95 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If this scheme were in the hands of almost anyone else, I would believe you over papasmurf. Given who it is, and what his track record is, and why he was given those previous projects to lead, and what they have done, I cannot share your viewpoint nor agree it has any credibiity. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Oct 27 2014, 06:36 PM Post #96 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So what we have is a scheme the GPs themselves support, that has been seriously piloted and PS can find not one problem from that piloting and yet PS wants anyone that might think it's a good idea to be burnt at the stake. Anyone know the number for the out of hours funny farm pick up service? Just asking like. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 27 2014, 07:11 PM Post #97 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Time will tell as always |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Oct 27 2014, 07:21 PM Post #98 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The fact that it is supported by trained and experienced GP's with medical qualifications licenced to practise by the BMA will not burst his little bubble they will be wrong and have been brainwashed by right wing versions of the Lancet.
|
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 30 2014, 01:13 PM Post #99 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course GP's support it. It takes the oweness off them when someone who is patently not fit to return to work is sent back by these highly qualified people and it all goes tits up. The GP's sit back, smile sweetly, and say "Nothing to do with me your Honour". |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 30 2014, 02:40 PM Post #100 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That was my anticipation. But I kid you not she has her second car of the year and it is a top of the range red and black mini. She does not work as she is her sons Carer, he the husband does not work and has, so he claims, his PIP, the two girls are at school and the boy is severely disabled. So where does this £56.75 per week come from. According to the wife informing my wife their total income comes from benefits and they have the maximum amount possible. I do not object to the car only point out how easy it is to have such changed. As for the PIP I know he out foxed the DWP and assume if he can so can others. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Nov 1 2014, 12:58 PM Post #101 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok. Simple question. In the past you have owned your own companies, yes? You have employed a fair amount of people, yes? I assume you have done some of the interviewing of prospective employees yourself, yes? In truth, would you empoy someone with a well documented, (by medical professionals, even NHS ones ), medical history of long term ill health over someone with the same qualifications, but no such detrimental health record? I suggest you would not. If perchance you did, and the employee, due to his known health problems, fell short of your expectations, he would unceremoniously get a size 9 up the jacksie wouldn't he? TBH, I can't really blame you either. You live in a world of cold hard profit, where compassion of any form plays no part. Any chance that they would not perform as well, or as often, as their "fit" competition, would result in rejection of their job application. Again, I find this quite reqasonable. Now here's the rub. You appear to expect other employers to take on such people when a team of medical professionals set on by the govnt suddenly declares them "capable" of work after years of being deemed unfit.
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 1 2014, 04:22 PM Post #102 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mr Pig: Ok. Simple question. In the past you have owned your own companies, yes? You have employed a fair amount of people, yes? I assume you have done some of the interviewing of prospective employees yourself, yes? In truth, would you empoy someone with a well documented, (by medical professionals, even NHS ones ), medical history of long term ill health over someone with the same qualifications, but no such detrimental health record? I suggest you would not. A bit of a hypothetical question with no simple answer other than "it depends". In Italy it was the Law that I should take a portion of people with disabilities, in my case two, but the State understood that such people were unlikely to be as productive as others therefore they paid a share of wage costs. We had one man in a wheelchair packing cases in the Storeroom and the other a lame man who control;led the gates, did errands and was provided with an on-site tiny apartment. Everyone accepted the situation, nobody griped and it appeared too work for the benefit of all. Mr Pig: If perchance you did, and the employee, due to his known health problems, fell short of your expectations, he would unceremoniously get a size 9 up the jacksie wouldn't he? No he would not. Such actions would be totally counterproductive and against Labour Laws. You do not treat people in this manner and expect the rest of your staff to be loyal to you or your company. Mr Pig: TBH, I can't really blame you either. You live in a world of cold hard profit, where compassion of any form plays no part. Any chance that they would not perform as well, or as often, as their "fit" competition, would result in rejection of their job application. Again, I find this quite reqasonable. Now here's the rub. You appear to expect other employers to take on such people when a team of medical professionals set on by the govnt suddenly declares them "capable" of work after years of being deemed unfit. You really do talk a lot of ignorant nonsense. Maybe you have been watching far too many repeats of Hard Times. Anyway from a purely academic point it is the responsibility of the State to provide for welfare programmes and not the primary responsibility of businesses. Based on what you have said above I must ask whether you have actually ever been employed? |
![]() |
|
| rizzo | Nov 1 2014, 05:36 PM Post #103 |
|
Junior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are they still going to rely on the decision from ''a non medical adjudicating officer'' as they did previously? |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Nov 1 2014, 07:32 PM Post #104 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah, letting your true colours show through ever so slightly eh? To me you are saying that it is not the responsibility of the private sector to employ people with health issues. Yet, you say the state should provide for them. I take it you mean the nanny state which wastes money on creating non jobs instead of filling the pockets of wealthy private individuals? So, you think it is not the responsibility of the private sector to help out by employing such people. Neither should the fat, bloated nanny state create a niche as it wastes money. Neither should they live a life dependant on the welfare state. I'm in a bit of a quandry as to what your solution should be. Your final feeble attempt at an insulting slur on my character just proves that you are indeed suffering from a case of terminal bewilderment. Edited by disgruntled porker, Nov 1 2014, 07:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Nov 1 2014, 07:47 PM Post #105 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Is that what it is? I decided to look it up .........
I wanted to know because his refusal to debate with me earlier gave me reason to examine why this backing off should occur. You could be correct (above), but I was under the impression it was related to bullshit and the difficulty he can have in defending it. |
![]() |
|
| ranger121 | Nov 2 2014, 04:17 PM Post #106 |
![]()
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course, you have done your civic duty and reported your suspicions to the DWP, haven't you? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




), medical history of long term ill health over someone with the same qualifications, but no such detrimental health record? I suggest you would not. If perchance you did, and the employee, due to his known health problems, fell short of your expectations, he would unceremoniously get a size 9 up the jacksie wouldn't he? TBH, I can't really blame you either. You live in a world of cold hard profit, where compassion of any form plays no part. Any chance that they would not perform as well, or as often, as their "fit" competition, would result in rejection of their job application. Again, I find this quite reqasonable. Now here's the rub. You appear to expect other employers to take on such people when a team of medical professionals set on by the govnt suddenly declares them "capable" of work after years of being deemed unfit.

7:33 PM Jul 11